Wednesday, April 11, 2007


   What’s the purpose of historic preservation?  Is it mostly visual, in that old buildings are pleasant to look at?  Or is it also cultural, so that we save buildings that exemplify a style of architecture or an historic event?  Because they serve as museums of a former age?   Is it more mystical –- that an historic building acts as some kind of silent and inanimate witness from the past to the turmoil of the present?

Reliancebldg    The Chicago Tribune published this week a thoughtful piece by its architecture critic, Blair Kamin, on the common practice of “façade preservation” –- what Kamin also refers to a “façade-ectomy” (actually, shouldn’t it be everything-but-the-facade-ectomy?) –- in which only the facade of an historic building is preserved, while the space behind it is transformed to modern needs: a modern office building or even a parking garage.  Kamin’s article, which is critical of the practice, points out successes in fixing up the entirety of some structures for modern use, such as the famous landmark Reliance Building (now the Hotel Burnham) in Chicago, or even reconstructions in which only the girders are saved.

  I too am a fan of historic preservation laws, even when I think they sometimes go too far.  Like the protection of endangered species, if we allow an historic building to be demolished, there’s no way to get it back.  But I’ll differ from Kamin on his view of façade preservation.  In the “exuberant” era –- say 1870 to 1920, which also matches the “golden age” of Chicago architecture –- many structures were built largely as facades; behind many a splashy street exterior of stone and sculpture lay a rather functional and bland brick and plaster building of a nation focused on business.  Many exteriors were built purely as visual treats, and it does not seem improper to treat them as such today.

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Façade-ectomy?:


Facadism can be useful when the heritage value being protected is continuity of character or streetscape; for the maintenance of a sense of place and creation of a meaningful environment.

Facadism as a mode of 'protection' of social/historic/architectural value, however, is very much misguided and firmly rooted in the western philosophy of heritage - a philosophy which is preoccupied with the fabric of a place.

Lesley-Anne Petrie, ‘An Inherently Exclusionary Regime – Heritage Law: The South Australian Experience’ 5 (2005) Macquarie Law Journal 177

Lesley-Anne Petrie, ‘The Implementation of Heritage Legislation in South Australia: A comment on I & NA Davies Pty Ltd v City of Unley’ 8(2) (2005) Flinders Journal of Law Reform 117

Lesley-Anne Petrie, ‘Comment on Productivity Commission Draft Report Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places’ available at

Posted by: LP | Apr 17, 2007 3:49:42 AM